Can Ron Paul win?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ron Paul has lots of support on the internet that won’t transfer to real life. His supporters are passionate, not large. They also don’t convince non believers well. They come across as bullying and unable to handle differing views. I agree with Ron Paul on some issues but his forgein policy scares me, and his followers are to…I don’t know…
 
Orleans_Attny said:
There’s nothing wrong with collecting intelligence. Indeed, it’s quite necessary. The question is how one does it, and the risk to reward ratio.

We’ve overthrown governments on either side of Iran.

Many of our politicians publically pound the war drums about Iran on a daily basis.

We even have Republican candidates openly advancing “regime change.”

We are conducting drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan and Afghanistan and Iraq…at least.

So when one considers how to collect intelligence against Iran, one must consider the method of collection and the downside to getting caught in terms of international fallout and excaberating a potentially tense situation. And then one must weigh those risks against the benefit of having that intelligence.

We can, and do, collect intelligence on Iran day after day without flying drones over their territory.

One of the relevant question is this: If you assume the worst, and Iran develops a weaponized nuclear weapon, how much does that increase the risk to the U.S. homeland? Answer: Almost nothing.

Pax,
OA
Click to expand...
How about Israel? Iran has vowed to wipe that country off the face of the earth. Is that alright with you? Don’t you think that would draw us into the fray?
 
mary_bobo said:
How about Israel? Iran has vowed to wipe that country off the face of the earth. Is that alright with you? Don’t you think that would draw us into the fray?
Click to expand...
👍

Some of Dr. Pauls followers DO show some slight anti-Israel sentiment
 
Owlpride said:
👍

Some of Dr. Pauls followers DO show some slight anti-Israel sentiment
Click to expand...
What is Israel not big enough to put its own pants on in the morning? I have no problem providing them with assistance if a war was to break out between then and Iran. But if I’m not mistaken they’ve got enough firepower to set Iran back 100 years or so if they wanted to. That is not anti-Israel sentiment.
 
mary_bobo said:
How about Israel? Iran has vowed to wipe that country off the face of the earth. Is that alright with you? Don’t you think that would draw us into the fray?
Click to expand...
Two issues: My primary point is that we should struggle a lot harder than we do to avoid military intervention. And part of that struggle is for us to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries.

Second, Saying you’ll wipe someone off the map is very different than actually doing it. And Israel has proven on a number of occasions that it’s quite capable of taking care of itself . . . . And given Israel’s 200+ weaponized nuclear warheads, it seems likely that Iran will think twice before striking Israel. BTW, it also seems very likely that Israel will conduct airstrikes to degrade Iran’s nuclear weapons program before it creates a viable weapon.

So why again is this our problem? Seriously, why is it in America’s national security interest to intervene between China and Taiwan, between Israel and Iran, between India and Pakistan, in Libya’s civil war, everywhere in Africa, or Iraq and Iran, etc…

Maybe I’m sensitive to this because I’m the one (and people like me) who actually has to go.

Or maybe I’m sensitive to it because I actually understand the law of the basis for the use of force under international law … and our regular disregard of it.

Then again, maybe I’m just a hippie that thinks we should do everything possible to avoid killing people…

Pax,
OA
 
Orleans_Attny said:
Two issues: My primary point is that we should struggle a lot harder than we do to avoid military intervention. And part of that struggle is for us to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries.

Second, Saying you’ll wipe someone off the map is very different than actually doing it. And Israel has proven on a number of occasions that it’s quite capable of taking care of itself . . . . And given Israel’s 200+ weaponized nuclear warheads, it seems likely that Iran will think twice before striking Israel. BTW, it also seems very likely that Israel will conduct airstrikes to degrade Iran’s nuclear weapons program before it creates a viable weapon.

So why again is this our problem? Seriously, why is it in America’s national security interest to intervene between China and Taiwan, between Israel and Iran, between India and Pakistan, in Libya’s civil war, everywhere in Africa, or Iraq and Iran, etc…

Maybe I’m sensitive to this because I’m the one (and people like me) who actually has to go.

Or maybe I’m sensitive to it because I actually understand the law of the basis for the use of force under international law … and our regular disregard of it.

Then again, maybe I’m just a hippie that thinks we should do everything possible to avoid killing people…

Pax,
OA
Click to expand...
I think your all of the above. 😉

Just curious, have you read Bastiats The Law?
 
scipio337 said:
You are talking about a government that has had its population chant “death to America”, every Friday, for almost 40 years. A government that backed the killing 200+ Marines in Beirut. A government that stormed our embassy, and held US citizens as hostage for how long?

And some here have called for “regime change”?

Oh, the humanity!
Click to expand...
I wonder how we would feel about China if they sent their intelligence agents over here to kill Obama. Would we be chanting the praises of China? Then why should we expect any less of Iran after our government took out the Shah?
 
JimR-OCDS said:
The only poll that Rob Paul is actually showing promise in is in Iowa.

Even if he were to win Iowa, keep in mind two facts, the winners of Iowa in the past have been,

Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee.

Neither won the GOP nomination.

With these kind of results, I wonder why we put so much emphasis on the Iowa caucus?

Jim
Click to expand...
You conveniently ignore that George Bush won the Iowa caucus in 2000.
 
The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality is the other book I ordered. Will be a nice addition to my collection.
 
Ron Paul fans: What do you think of Ron Paul’s none-too-subtle inference on Jay Leno’s show Fri 12/16 that he’s a-okay with gay marriage and his blatant comments that Rick Santorum (who’s Catholic) is obsessed with gays and that Michele Bachmann hates Muslims? Shows a serious lack of class on his part. I don’t recall Michele Bachmann taking the bait with the “word association game” when she was on Jimmy Fallon’s show a couple weeks ago.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
The only poll that Rob Paul is actually showing promise in is in Iowa.

Even if he were to win Iowa, keep in mind two facts, the winners of Iowa in the past have been,

Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee.

Neither won the GOP nomination.

With these kind of results, I wonder why we put so much emphasis on the Iowa caucus?

Jim
Click to expand...
I heard yesterday a discussion which included former GOP chairman Michael Steele, that if Paul wins there this time, the parties might seriously consider downgrading the importance of the Iowa caucus in the future.
 
CMatt25 said:
I heard yesterday a discussion which included former GOP chairman Michael Steele, that if Paul wins there this time, the parties might seriously consider downgrading the importance of the Iowa caucus in the future.
Click to expand...
Um…its importance has already been downgraded. I’m just glad Arizona isn’t the country’s laughingstock anymore. Iowa gets the honors this time around. 🙂
 
havana1 said:
Ron Paul fans: What do you think of Ron Paul’s none-too-subtle inference on Jay Leno’s show Fri 12/16 that he’s a-okay with gay marriage and his blatant comments that Rick Santorum (who’s Catholic) is obsessed with gays and that Michele Bachmann hates Muslims? Shows a serious lack of class on his part. I don’t recall Michele Bachmann taking the bait with the “word association game” when she was on Jimmy Fallon’s show a couple weeks ago.
Click to expand...
Well when she lies about Iran to rile up support for invasion what else can you conclude? And remember that it’s a comedy show so don’t take it too seriously.

And as for gays, remember that Paul voted for the DoMA.
 
smndtupidisaftr said:
Well when she lies about Iran to rile up support for invasion what else can you conclude? And remember that it’s a comedy show so don’t take it too seriously.

And as for gays, remember that Paul voted for the DoMA.
Click to expand...
He also voted against DADT. Big red flag for any Catholic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top